Fitness Profile

On 28 April I venture into the office gym, where normally I only go to change clothes before heading outside to run. The mission: a "Fitness Profile" set of tests. It's an entertaining experience, but although I love numbers I'm quite skeptical about many of these, particularly ones reported with excessive false precision. But for the record, my blood pressure is rather too high, 150/91 at a pulse rate of 68. Perhaps I'm nervous? The results from a "Tanita" stand-barefoot-on-the electrodes and grip-the-electrodes "Body Composition Analyzer" printout:

Those are apparently all within reasonable ranges for a 57-year-old male. The machine suggests that I could stand to lose half a dozen pounds or so; no argument from me on that. And I'm probably a bit dehydrated this early in the morning, which may cause errors in the machine's analysis.

Then I do a set of "Microfit" measurements, using machinery for testing endurance, strength, and flexibility. The results there:

The Aerobic Fitness measurement is done on a stationary bicycle with increasing resistance, and cuts off when the heart monitor says I'm up to ~147 beats/min, before I really start sweating much. That V02 Max number claims to be in the "Fit" range, but I think I can do much better. Also supposedly "Fit" are Biceps Strength and Back Flexibility; perhaps the standards are low for old men? My hand grip strength number, in contrast, falls in the "Needs Work" (aka "Pitifully Weak") category.

Overall verdict? Moderately interesting, but not terribly scientific. Perhaps I'll try again in six months and see if there's any improvement, though I strongly suspect a huge amount of noise is in with the data. Controlled experiments would be fun, but I've got better things to do—such as get outside and run!

^z - 2010-04-30